There, we must discuss the extended use of the word by Ibn Abbaas and his fellows, such as Mujaahid, as well as their contemporaries and next generation, such as As-Suddiyy, Ad-Dhahhaak and Ibn Zayd. This is really the only way I can see to reconcile their views with logic: they simply understood the word differently. Why they did, I don't know.

There, we must discuss the extended use of the word by Ibn Abbaas and his fellows, such as Mujaahid, as well as their contemporaries and next generation, such as As-Suddiyy, Ad-Dhahhaak and Ibn Zayd.

This will be one of the cornerstones of the study. It is not that difficult given the striking examples of narrations about abrogation from these distinguished figures that have been routinely overruled by key scholars in early Islam. It is not difficult, but it is delicate. How we write it is as important as the substance of what we write. If we succeed in just this part, we will have deprived the abrogation doctrine of its most important basis.

There are many questions that can be addressed in this regard. The authenticity of the narration, the accuracy of the wording of the narration, the meaning of the words to the person who used it, and finally the merits of the opinion. To the extent that we can, we should use the fact that key scholars have openly disagreed with some of the narrations and use that as a proof that the narrations do not trump other evidence, without having to go too heavily into why they don't trump other evidence, as this direction may be unsettling for some people.

There are many questions that can be addressed in this regard. The authenticity of the narration, the accuracy of the wording of the narration, the meaning of the words to the person who used it, and finally the merits of the opinion. To the extent that we can, we should use the fact that key scholars have openly disagreed with some of the narrations and use that as a proof that the narrations do not trump other evidence, without having to go too heavily into why they don't trump other evidence, as this direction may be unsettling for some people.

I highlighted the part which I see as crucial. But I don't yet know how to prove it. That is, I believe that the early Muslim scholars understood the word "نسخ" as "any subsequent changes to the provision of a verse." That included, in their view, exceptions, exemptions, specification, easing, addressing other situations and other people, etc. None of that can be rightly seen as abrogation, but may be rightly seen as "نسخ". In other words, when they said a verse was "updated" (نسخت), they meant that it is no longer to be taken alone to decide a matter, but the "updating" verse must also be considered.

So, perhaps we can resolve this whole matter if we can reasonably prove that the word "نسخ" has been incorrectly defined and translated; that it's correct translation is: Updates.

In other words, when they said a verse was "updated" (نسخت), they meant that it is no longer to be taken alone to decide a matter, but the "updating" verse must also be considered.

I believe we can substantiate this view with examples that were considered abrogation, and that clearly do not remove the old ruling, but amend it. A pronounced case is the verse setting "اللعان" rule,

");
}//-->

that amended the verse setting the rules for sexual accusations,

On page 114-115 (item 173) in volume 1 of Zaid's book, he discusses how this is considered "partial abrogation" by the Hanafis. The mere use of the expression "partial abrogation," and the obvious fact that the ruling in 24:4 still stands in general, give credence to the assertion that this is a linguistic discrepancy not a theological one.

BTW, I think there is an important benefit for having general rules in some verses amended in later verses rather than in the same verse. This underlines the fact that the rule is not absolute, but subject to exceptions when a compelling situation arises (such as the situation of "اللعان"). If the exception was made in the same verse as part of the original ruling, it is more likely that people would take it as the only exception and that the rule, stated with the exception, is otherwise absolute. In this particular case, another situation might arise that may also be considered an exception, for example rape. If a victim of rape reports the incident, it stands to logic that there is no need for 4 witnesses to prevent the victim from receiving the penalty for slander. It may well be that "اللعان" protocol is applicable in such case. JMHO, and God knows best.

I think there is an important benefit for having general rules in some verses amended in later verses rather than in the same verse. This underlines the fact that the rule is not absolute, but subject to exceptions when a compelling situation arises (such as the situation of "اللعان").

Linguistic, I wanted to mention in this context an excellent point that you brought up in a mail message:

Why would anyone conclude from a verse that its ruling is final, hence when some other aspects of the ruling are later revealed, they jump to the conclusion that it's been abrogated? The rulings of the Quran were not complete until the last verse of it, 5:3, that says "... This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion..." was revealed.

Linguistic, I wanted to mention in this context an excellent point that you brought up in a mail message:

Why would anyone conclude from a verse that its ruling is final, hence when some other aspects of the ruling are later revealed, they jump to the conclusion that it's been abrogated? The rulings of the Quran were not complete until the last verse of it, 5:3, that says "... This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion..." was revealed.

Indeed. Until the Quran said it was complete, it wasn't. The Jews denied that the Quran is legitimate revelation because they claimed the Torah was the complete and final revelation. But the Torah did not say it was the final revelation! On the contrary, it foretold of prophets to come that the Jews must obey.

The methodology that the scholars should have followed when they were confronted with challenges, accusations and perceived contradiction, should have been to deeply study the Quran, with aid from the authentic Sunna and counter the arguments of the adversaries and reconcile verses that looked to some of them as saying two different things about the same matter. We try to follow that methodology in this project. Instead, many scholars found an easy way out in the abrogation doctrine, but it was a false argument in support of the truth and that sort of thing hurts the truth more than it helps.

Unity Pressure: In abrogation and in other theological issues, there is a strong tendency of scholars to seek unity and resist dissent, in order to avoid Fitna. This created pressure on everyone to conform to the abrogation doctrine once it took hold. Slanderous attacks were made against anyone who disagreed, and that can result in serious bias in the scholarly peer system, both in terms of which opinions get to be expressed and which opinions get to be cited, thus creating a self-fulfilling consensus.

In the introduction of his book on page 7, Nada recounts how he and his colleagues were taught the abrogation doctrine at Al-Azhar as if it was part of the Islamic faith, and how it was asserted in the books they read, old and new. He only started to have doubts after he graduated. It is an interesting example of the indoctrination (no pun intended) about abrogation in young scholars.

7. How did this happen: Even if our arguments are convincing, people may have doubts because the abrogation doctrine has been entrenched in Islamic thought for 14 centuries. We need to explain how a false doctrine can persist that long.

I suggest a new point that has the same flavor as this point in that it does not substantiate the case per se but addresses a natural question that could be bothering the reader. Here is the point.

8. Why did God include verses that are susceptible to abrogation claims: This question is not second-guessing the Almighty, God forbid. It is just a natural question that may occur to those who see some merit in the stronger abrogation claims, even when that merit does not meet the burden of proof. There are two concepts that provide an answer.

On pages 136-137 of his book, Nada quotes Dr. Yusof Al-Qaradhawi as he addresses this point. Al-Qaradhawi was discussing the general subject of "Does changing an edict according to time, place, and condition have evidence in the Quran?" He specifically cites 8:65-66 as setting that principle by example, where 8:66 sets a lighter rule than 8:65 in the case of weakness. He emphasizes that each rule will be applicable over and over during the Muslim history as it goes through periods of strength and weakness. In addition to refuting the abrogation claim, this argument shows a wisdom of having these examples in the Quran to set the principle that different conditions call for different rulings that may seem contradictory but in reality are not because they are tied to conditions that are different, sometimes subtly different.

I have already alluded earlier in this thread to another benefit of having a ruling split between two verses in a way that may invite an abrogation claim.

Pragmatic wrote:

I think there is an important benefit for having general rules in some verses amended in later verses rather than in the same verse. This underlines the fact that the rule is not absolute, but subject to exceptions when a compelling situation arises (such as the situation of "اللعان"). If the exception was made in the same verse as part of the original ruling, it is more likely that people would take it as the only exception and that the rule, stated with the exception, is otherwise absolute. In this particular case, another situation might arise that may also be considered an exception, for example rape. If a victim of rape reports the incident, it stands to logic that there is no need for 4 witnesses to prevent the victim from receiving the penalty for slander. It may well be that "اللعان" protocol is applicable in such case. JMHO, and God knows best.

8. Why did God include verses that are susceptible to abrogation claims:

I agree with both points you mentioned and would like to add this,

Fitna: As in test of faith. Will Muslims be intimidated by the charge of the Jews? How will they react? Will that cause them to advocate abrogation as defense, or would they refute the charge of the Jews in its essence? This is similar to what these verses talk about:

");
}//-->

Thus, just as God has always allowed Satan to briefly attempt to confuse revelations in order that God may test the faith of the listeners, He allowed the Jews to make a charge against the Quran to see how Muslims will refute it.

To force Muslims to study the Quran deeper than they would have if they did not think there were contradictions in it! This is what this verse is talking about:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum